Re: Poll: Keeping_client_open_247

I agree that this rule (or gentleman's agreement) is unclear and in its current form powerless.

But I'd be more interested in seeing if people agree or disagree with patching the server to limit playing time. However I don't know if such a patch already exists or is easy to make. If so then we could have a vote about this. Second question is whether this would be a overall Longturn rule (so the patch is applied to every game), or something that is voted on for every game seperately.

Re: Poll: Keeping_client_open_247

Marduk wrote:

I agree that this rule (or gentleman's agreement) is unclear and in its current form powerless.

But I'd be more interested in seeing if people agree or disagree with patching the server to limit playing time. However I don't know if such a patch already exists or is easy to make. If so then we could have a vote about this. Second question is whether this would be a overall Longturn rule (so the patch is applied to every game), or something that is voted on for every game seperately.

If limit playing patch works well, I won't join any game that doesn't include it. It's absurd to play longturn with people online 24/7. I have never been affected by this stuff in my few previus longturn games and now I can say it spoils the game.BTW Lt 30 is history.

Re: Poll: Keeping_client_open_247

The patch for limiting time exists and is being tested in LTex23b. It works very well!

For single player games, maybe. I hardly think it's working for bigger multiuser campaigns.

For example I am still waiting gold from my allies and cannot finish my turn until that comes.

Right, you don't have to be online continuously to get gold or to send messages to your allies. In-game chatting extensively with allies would not be possible with time limit but that can be done outside freeciv client (e.g., msn, gmail chat, etc.).

Re: Poll: Keeping_client_open_247

For example I am still waiting gold from my allies and cannot finish my turn until that comes.

I think you don't need to be online to receive gold. You can log in 5 minutes each time and see if you have received it or ask for it or whatever you want to.

Does not every login onto the server cause quite some strain on it, temporarily halting the game for *everyone* briefly at the moment one logs on? Besides the ridiculously cumbersome process of logging off and logging on again after 5 minutes and wait for the entire game data to be transferred back to you, in a game this size, one exposes oneself for the risk of being accused of trying to carry out a DOS attack on the server :-/. Sorry, but there is such a culture of accusing here at Longturn it is outright silly.

LT is aimed not only to people with just "15 minutes" per day to play, but also to people like me as well, who have the gaming time and interaction with others quite heavily fragmented into several small bits due to more important things (like having a job, taking responsibility for one's children etc) cutting it up. Having the client logged on is the only practical solution when one plays LT in that situation. One set of moves takes care of one's workers/engineers at one moment, then goes down and change the laundry in the washing machine. Then one takes care of the cities various productions and after that reads a bed time story for the small kids. After that, moves the remaining units. During this time, I glance to see if there is any diplomatic meetings I need to accept or open, depending on various things that happens with my allied nations.

If I keep the client up and logged on, I can, at the very instant I get a suitable moment, use it fully for the game, instead of waiting for the client to login and initialize every time.

Also, I cannot really take the argument seriously that it becomes 'impossible' to attack someone if you cannot figure out if he's online or offline. I consider it part of the game that my target might or might not know what I do. That uncertainity caused me some 'problems' when I fought a bit against MrSynical, but hey, it is the kind of problems I *EXPECT* as part of the game.

Actually, it's MORE fun to if he's online, because then it's more of a challenge (will I investigate his city quickly enough? Can I bring down his defence before he reinforces? etc...). Also, one can chat with each other (makes game less boring!).

With the risk of being offensive... requiring that people are offline and don't interfere with each others moves in a game that essentially is an RTS (and freeciv as we use it for longturn IS an RTS as it is fundamentally architectured) feels as natural that a man and a woman are required to have sex with each other only when one of them is asleep. (Yes, I'm serious).

Well, maybe it's me coming from an empire background... a game where the concept of 'my turn, your turn' was absolutely absent. There it was the RULE that players acted in real time on each other's moves... (and being a game played using a CLI, many players used scripted CLI attacks being raw text piped into the client before and after 'update' (empire word for TC), with expected or unexpected results).

In empire, you were declared 'fodder' if you were not reacting during an invasion attempt :-). Here, you are accused for bad sportmanship :-/.

Re: Poll: Keeping_client_open_247

People can use this forum for example to do roleplay:)

Talking about roleplay... How exactly you see a possiblity to talk instantly in -3000?:D Its more real talking here:)

Problem with gold can be in some way solved same i wrote about science in our google group. Same rules which can make it more confortable for all. Remeber that its ALWAYS like that - the bigger alliance the harder to coordinate, its easy solution of limiting alliances size.

Re: Poll: Keeping_client_open_247

IllvilJa wrote:

Also, I cannot really take the argument seriously that it becomes 'impossible' to attack someone if you cannot figure out if he's online or offline. I consider it part of the game that my target might or might not know what I do. That uncertainity caused me some 'problems' when I fought a bit against MrSynical, but hey, it is the kind of problems I *EXPECT* as part of the game./IllvilJa

I don't consider it a part of the game itself. It's just an unavoidable matter, since it would be too slow to move one player after another and I think its effects should be minimized.

IllvilJa wrote:

Actually, it's MORE fun to if he's online, because then it's more of a challenge (will I investigate his city quickly enough? Can I bring down his defence before he reinforces? etc...). Also, one can chat with each other (makes game less boring!).In empire, you were declared 'fodder' if you were not reacting during an invasion attempt :-). Here, you are accused for bad sportmanship :-/./IllvilJa

There are lots of RTS games to play that way. They are so fun too. A turn based game shouldn't require fast fingers nor reflexes. Doom or warcraft style yes.

Re: Poll: Keeping_client_open_247

There are good reasons for and against having a time limit on being logged in, so for now let's decide it by voting rather than implement it as a general rule.

Kryon wrote:

The patch for limiting time exists and is being tested in LTex23b. It works very well!

Good. Would you like to make a poll to enable it in LT31? Please specify precise settings and server modifications so Akfaew can implement it. A limit of 2 hours is commonly suggested, if that poll is rejected we can try again with a wider time limit.

Re: Poll: Keeping_client_open_247

IllvilJa wrote:

Having the client logged on is the only practical solution when one plays LT in that situation.

IllvilJa is talking about me! Same problems (no time to log in if I want to just check a diplomatic agreement or if I want to buy buildings at end of turn etc. etc.), same solution: let the client connected, except if I'm out of home/job: this way, a glimpse, couple of clicks, done.He maybe has been some too much radical for my opinion: of course we shouldn't let players interact in a shoot'em-all game type. I don't think it will be easy to find a solution. Actually I will always vote to keep 24/7, ora at least as much hours as possible (2 are very few... why not put some 10-12?).Other solutions?Maybe:- to adress specific problems (attacking traveling units/spies) with specific countermeasures, e.g. make them unreachable etc. etc., but these could be easily target of some illegal script or trick to exploit them.- to estabilish a stand-by mode in the client (between "online" and "offline"), which is automatically turned on after 1' of inactivity. When player come back from the laundry room and focus on the client window (or in the F1 window), he will find himself in the same exact situation he left (e.g. checking the production of a city). Server will limit maximum amount of activity per turn (e.g. 2h). Features always available even in standbymode could be chat, help, diplo, etc. When a player is online he will be flagged, maybe directly in the map (cities could be highlighted somewhat)- to estabilish a paralyzing command for enemies. "/paralyze terror" will make impossible for terror to make anything in next - say - 3'. You can use it only once per-player per-turn. It can't be used in the 1st hour and in the last hour of a turn, and a paralyzed player can't be paralyzed again in the next 30'. Paralysis can be cast on multiple players or alliances. After paralyzing an enemy, a player will suffer the same paralysis time, multiplied for the number of players that have been paralyzed.

Re: Poll: Keeping_client_open_247

I think this poll is unclear. Does it mean to remove the phrase "it is common courtesy to", making it a rule rather than a suggestion; or to remove the entire rule, letting people stay logged in without consequence?

Personally I support an enforced login time limit, but I'm not sure whether this poll is for or against that.

Re: Poll: Keeping_client_open_247

Robodave wrote:

I think this poll is unclear. Does it mean to remove the phrase "it is common courtesy to", making it a rule rather than a suggestion; or to remove the entire rule, letting people stay logged in without consequence?

I intended it as 'for' to remove the section 8 and (for now -- until another poll) allow staying online 24/7, because it's unclear rule and as such can be interpreted to be just a suggestion and not a strict rule.

IMO changing/adding new rule should be another poll since that's different case and changes more.

Robodave wrote:

Personally I support an enforced login time limit, but I'm not sure whether this poll is for or against that.

Re: Poll: Keeping_client_open_247

jhh wrote:

I am OK if this poll doesn't pass, but I am not OK if it passes but isn't applied.

If a poll to legitimize what has happened in lt30 passed, another poll would have to be done to split the games between those who want to play rts mode and those who don't. We have been able to see in this game how it's used the 24/7 style of play. It's mostly used to cheat with all kind of scripts besides turning a turn based game into a rts one. If it wasn't important enough, players who can be logged in all day and near the screen get an unfair advantage over the rest.

Re: Poll: Keeping_client_open_247

jhh wrote:

I am OK if this poll doesn't pass, but I am not OK if it passes but isn't applied.

I withheld, just because I don't agree with this. I mean, we can't change a general rule IN-game, even if 99% of players agree. It is unfair for the last 1%.But I agree that this "rule" should be abolished for next games.

Re: Poll: Keeping_client_open_247

monamipierrot wrote:

I withheld, just because I don't agree with this. I mean, we can't change a general rule IN-game, even if 99% of players agree. It is unfair for the last 1%.But I agree that this "rule" should be abolished for next games.

Should the fact that LT30 is currently ongoing prevent a rule change that improves the rules for future games? Feels like an opportunity for an improvement is lost solely due to a mere technicality. If this vote pass, it should be reasonable that LT30 is excempt from the rule amendment suggested. Administrators thoughts on this technicality would be much appreciated.

Formally, I have not yet voted (current matters IRL has required me to spend quite little time on longturn and/or associated forums/chat), but as Kryon and Marduk discusses, it is possible to implement server enforced limits on how long players are allowed to be online, and the limit can be set by the use of votes. Also, this limit can be configured individually for the game servers (including the option, if players so desire, to configure that there is NO time limit). This is worth keeping in mind if resources come available to allow for multiple non-experimental servers running in parallel.

Given that, I think it's safe to say the rule no longer need to be part of Longturn rules, as it will be automatically enforced to the extent necessary by each individual server.

/IllvilJa

Edit: I voted, but was disturbed by the fact the poll actually appeared to refer to the LT30 game. After consulting jhh who placed the poll, it turned out he was considering the appropriate place for the poll to be in 'General' but that there is a bug that prevents him to create a 'General' poll. So, this poll is a general rule-change poll, not a poll aimed at changing the rules just for one specific game.

Re: Poll: Keeping_client_open_247

IllvilJa wrote:

Edit: I voted, but was disturbed by the fact the poll actually appeared to refer to the LT30 game. After consulting jhh who placed the poll, it turned out he was considering the appropriate place for the poll to be in 'General' but that there is a bug that prevents him to create a 'General' poll. So, this poll is a general rule-change poll, not a poll aimed at changing the rules just for one specific game.

Yes, I intended to place it in general, but since I couldn't, I thought its better to be in LT30 than not exists at all. I wanted to learn what was the real opinion of players.

I do think too, actually, that these kind of rules should be per game, not generic, especially if there is a poll that passes. If it's a generic rule, shouldn't it affect all games? Also the problem with this rule is that it isn't clear and as such some players interpret it wrongly. Also is it "common" if most players vote 'for' to this poll?

Re: Poll: Keeping_client_open_247

I've played a bit on the warservers. I enjoyed it, but I don't have many days that I can sit online for ~6h playing Civ, so instead I decided to play longturn instead of warserver. I've played for 5 years now, and the only games where it has turned into 'everybody sitting online' have involved Duncan, and generally they have been much less fun than other games. Such games are not the 'norm' which is why so many people are raising this as an issue (that you keep choosing to ignore). I fully support akfaew when he says a rule like this will not be implemented, as it goes against the nature of longturn as it has developed over the past few years.

As akfaew said, there is no point making the rule set here identical to freeciv.fi - and I'm fairly sure most people will continue to play with his iron-fisted approach of not implementing this poll even if it wins. You are more than welcome to create servers with your own ruleset on freeciv.fi and keep playing there, we are not forcing you to only play LT, but if you stay, then you will have to play actual LT.

Re: Poll: Keeping_client_open_247

det0r wrote:

I've played a bit on the warservers. I enjoyed it, but I don't have many days that I can sit online for ~6h playing Civ, so instead I decided to play longturn instead of warserver. I've played for 5 years now, and the only games where it has turned into 'everybody sitting online' have involved Duncan, and generally they have been much less fun than other games. Such games are not the 'norm' which is why so many people are raising this as an issue (that you keep choosing to ignore). I fully support akfaew when he says a rule like this will not be implemented, as it goes against the nature of longturn as it has developed over the past few years.

I don't play this game 6h+ day. This is not about that. Keeping the client open doesn't mean you play that much.

det0r wrote:

As akfaew said, there is no point making the rule set here identical to freeciv.fi - and I'm fairly sure most people will continue to play with his iron-fisted approach of not implementing this poll even if it wins. You are more than welcome to create servers with your own ruleset on freeciv.fi and keep playing there, we are not forcing you to only play LT, but if you stay, then you will have to play actual LT.

No need to tell me we can play our own games somewhere else, but each time this has been discussed I have been told to make a poll if I wanted things to change here, so I made one.

I wouldn't want international "longturn" community to split because of this kind of thing, but it seems, since we were better in LT30 there is quite a lot of bad feelings directed to us now. It shouldn't be like that. Games are just games and we have done nothing really differently than you "veterans" did against us in the first place.

It wasn't only us from freeciv.fi keeping the client open in LT30 nor was it us implementing those scripts you talk (that btw have been traditionally illegal in Freeciv.fi), especially with the new Freeciv 2.3.0 that has a lot of issues dealing with not keeping the client open (for example blocking the game each time new connection is made etc).

Re: Poll: Keeping_client_open_247

Unknown qoute: "With the risk of being offensive... requiring that people are offline and don't interfere with each others moves in a game that essentially is an RTS (and freeciv as we use it for longturn IS an RTS as it is fundamentally architectured) feels as natural that a man and a woman are required to have sex with each other only when one of them is asleep. (Yes, I'm serious)."

For heavens sake boys, if we restrict this game to 1 hour a day, give this noty boy an hour more, so he can apply his work properly. Seriously, you are giving him achievement-pressure. What are you all thinking?

Re: Poll: Keeping_client_open_247

I think most of the players who want the games 24/7 online are giving vague excuses. All they claim can be summed up in being more comfortable because they need to play while doing the iron, the washing up, etc... They think this "comfortable issue" is more important than changing the basis of the nature of the game, which it's not other than being a turn based game which tries that someone who can only play 15 minutes a day has got similar chances to win the game compared to someone who can play all day long. Or they are very mistaken or they just want to open a gap to keep using their valuable scripts and all the rts cheat that being 24/7 online implies.

They have been ignoring a rule of longturn games since it's so easy to break it, till spoil this game for the rest.Now they want to get into a Catholic church to start preaching Buddhism.

I haven't voted this poll as I thought it was for lt30 and, since this game is mostly being playing now by players who are online 24/7, I thought they have made their bed, now they must lie on it.

I repeat: If admins are so kind to apply a general poll that passed, a second poll would have to be done to split the games. I see no point in playing this game with people online 24/7.